I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. Since I am Pro, I am for animal testing. My opponent has not defined animal testing; therefore, I shall offer a definition I think we can both agree upon.

Animal Testing: Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in experiments [1].

I eagerly await my opponent’s opening arguments and wish him luck. With that said, I affirm the resolution, “Animal testing should be allowed”.

It is thanks to animal testing that we have the cure to rabies, anthrax, some forms of arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella, polio, and measles [2]. Nearly all of these diseases used to be fatal and without proper treatment could kill or cripple you for life.

Let’s take polio, for example. Polio was a historically devastating disease. In 1952, there were over 60,000 cases with more than 3,000 deaths in the U.S alone [3]. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a president of the U.S, suffered from polio before [4]. He truly was a great president, for he took presidency at one of the hardest times in history for the U.S. The time I speak of was the Great Depression. He helped Americans regain faith in themselves and brought hope as he promised [5]. However, half of his body was paralyzed during his presidency and after quite some time, he died. He could have continued to do many great things for the people of America, but this disease had robbed him of his life.

Now, of course, we have cures to polio, and this is thanks to animal testing. We can prevent deaths such as those of Franklin D. Roosevelt; however, my opponent feels that animal testing should no longer be allowed. He feels that animal testing, which has cured so many diseases that have robbed so many peoples’ lives, should be abolished. He might as well be asking that we get rid of the world’s doctors. Moreover, if animal testing has cured so many diseases in the past, then it is only logical to conclude that it will cure many more diseases in the future. By getting rid of animal testing, my opponent would be putting humanity through many years of pain, sorrow, and death.

2. Animal testing not only helps humanity, it also helps animals themselves.

To help readers understand my arguments, I will break this into sub-groups.

2a. We havemedications and treatments for animals.

There are a plethora of treatments, medicines, and even health care for animals [6], [7], [8]. When you take your pet to the vet, how do you think the vet knows what to give your pet to make it better? How do you think we, humans, can save animal’s lives? We do this through animal testing. We test on the animals to make their own medications and treatments. It is thanks to animal testing that animals can be cured from skin problems, pain, lameness, reproductive problems, respiratory diseases, and more. Therefore, if we get rid of animal testing, then we aren’t only hurting ourselves, we are hurting animals themselves.

2b. Genetic engineering can bring back endangered or even extinct animals [9].

Genetic engineering is another form of animal testing that gives animals another chance at life. There isn’t much to say here; however, the enormity of this must be understood by everyone who reads this. Why should animal testing be abolished if we can accomplish saving endangered species? Should we not rectify the mistakes that we have made and help animals for once? Or should we simply care for ourselves until we are the last species on earth?

Conclusion:

I have proved how animal testing is not only beneficial to humans, but it is also beneficial to animals as well. Therefore, I stand firm in the resolution, "Animal testing should be allowed".

Once again, I apologize for a lack of arguments. I wish my opponent luck in the next round and hopefully he will have an abundance of time due to the festive holidays that are coming (Thanksgiving Break).

I am sorry to my opponent for not being available for the past round(s). I was unfortunately not time conscious about this particular debate ad I apologize. I shall now post my arguments.

First
As my opponent requests to Answer truthfully, I have taken Tylenol, aspirin, etc... And I have been to the doctor. I would not give up my doctor and medicine but that dosnt mean that a better alternative can be chosen then working on animals.

Second
Why do animals have to be forcibly taken from their environment and be subjected to unwanted tests. I ask my opponent to answer truthfully, would he like to be taken from hips family and be subjected to tests? Animals also have feelings and should thus be allowed to live their lives without being tested.

Third
It's also immoral to test on animals. They have been tested on for many cures to many diseases yet people still die of them even if the number is small. Organs can be donated to be tested on instead and if animals can't test us which is impossible then we shouldn't test them.

Well, this hasn't been the best of debates, but hopefully we can have a better one in the future.

Rebuttals:

1. My opponent has admitted to using certain forms of medicines and has even gone to the doctor. For example, he admits to taking Tylenol. Tylenol has actually been a result of animal testing [10]. Thus, he is contradicting himself in the sense that he benefits from animal testing in his everyday life yet claims that it should be abolished. In addition, he claims that there are better alternatives than animal testing, yet he provides none. As a result, I do not have to refute this point.

2. To answer your question truthfully; no, I would not like to be taken from my family to be subjected to tests. However, please take note that the animals that are used in animal testing are generally rats and mice. In addition, these rats and mice are not always alive. Sometimes, scientists test on already dead animals. Therefore, I feel somewhat offended that my opponent has compared my life to that of a rat's. Are you suggesting that we, human beings, are no better than these small, tiny mice and rats? Are you suggesting that intellectual beings such as us can be compared to animals that have brought disease and death upon us [11]?

Moreover, the animals that are taken away are treated respectably until it is time to test on them. Certain government agencies make sure of this, and if they feel that a company is not treating the animals that are being subjected to testing fairly, then they will close them down or prevent them from testing on any more animals.

Lastly, testing on animals isn't just to help us, it is to help them (as I proved in my second argument and its subgroups).

3. You claim that it is immoral to test on animals, yet I have proved otherwise. Without animal testing, there would be no treatments, medications, or knowledge as to how to save an animal's life. Without animal testing, we could no longer bring back animals that were near to extinction. Animal testing may be evil, but its outcomes are just so good that it is illogical to get rid of it. Wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice, say, 50 animals to find a cure to a deadly disease that affects both humans and animals? The cure would protect us from many unneeded deaths.

You also state that organs can be donated to test on. And where do you think these organs are coming from? Did you imagine that, perhaps, they would appear out of thin air? No, these organs can come from two sources--animals or humans. I am doubting that any human, including yourself, would want to donate their kidney to cure a disease. After all, would you want to donate your lungs/heart/brain/etc. to be subjected to testing? I certainly wouldn't. There are those, however, who are selfless and will give their lives for the greater good. Sadly, there aren't too many of those people who will be willing to give their lives to cure a disease.

However, let's assume (as a hypothetical situation) that we have enough organs from humans to test on. Well, depending on what organs were donated, it would probably cause a plethora of pain, suffering, and death among humans. Thus, it would be pointless to create a cure if that many people die for it. Have you ever read Alas Babylon? If so, then at the end of the book you would have noticed that while the U.S won the war against the Soviets, a character (I cannot recall who) states that it doesn't really matter. Do you know why? Because the U.S lost so many people and cities that winning the war seemed to be a trivial matter. Likewise, the same will probably happen here. In addition, testing on organs doesn't always work. Sometimes, we need to see the effects on the whole body, and not just that particular organ. Therefore, it is so much simpler and better to use animals to test on.

Conclusion:

I have successfuly refuted all of my opponent's arguments and some of my own have gone un-challenged. Thus, I urge you to vote Con!

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, although I wished he had had more time to make his arguments. With that said, I'm going to go eat some chips and salsa!

Reasons for voting decision: Hmm. PRO provided sources to back his points up. *sources*.... *Conduct* goes to PRO for the forfeit. Furthermore, I think PRO have a strong case, and actually made a rebuttal.*Convincing Arguments*

Reasons for voting decision: New arguments made in the last round should not be counted, so Con made no case. Forfeits lose conduct. Con should have attmpted to present evidence that animal testing is not required due to advancements in technology. I doubt that case is viable, but that's the avenue.